I have heard many people say that places like Norway, Scandinavia, Canada , and even U.K are in their own unique ways socialist utopias.
but the reality is these are capitalist societies, with racist hierarchies that provide basic services to their citizens through the subjugation and oppression of other people’s around our world.
Norway and Canada’s funds are built up from weapons sales to places like Saudi Arabia and Africa.
They also happen to oppress and subjugate those within their own society to achieve their desired goals.

Venezuela is perhaps the only truly revolutionary society.
Although faced with hard obstacles placed on them by the CIA and what some may say were missteps of thier government by not diversifying their economy.
Venezuelas socialist vision was however still built off its natural resources and had an egalitarian perspective of the world and it’s people.
They have the right idea.
There is no subjugation or oppression of other people within Venezuelas vision of its quest for self determination and implementing a socialist society.

What does socialism mean in a truly global sense?

.[Edited 10/26/18 22:09pm]

"It means finding the very human narrative of a man navigating between idealism and pragmatism, faith and politics, non-violence, the pitfalls of acclaim as the perils of rejection" – Lesley Hazleton on the first muslim, the prophet.

There are no utopias and everywhere can be improved but the nordics largely have their socialism down in a way that's pretty inspirational. Norway's biggest oil company is majority owned by the public and that money is used for pensions - https://www.nbim.no/en/the-fund/, can't see my country ever being that smart.

Arms manufacture and sales would indeed be something i'd be opposed to on principle. So when is the US doing this anyway?

There are some people who would be sufficed if the U.S were to nationalise it’s war profits in a similar fashion to places like Scandinavia or Canada.This is not the answer though.

Global socialism requires something greater.

"It means finding the very human narrative of a man navigating between idealism and pragmatism, faith and politics, non-violence, the pitfalls of acclaim as the perils of rejection" – Lesley Hazleton on the first muslim, the prophet.

"It means finding the very human narrative of a man navigating between idealism and pragmatism, faith and politics, non-violence, the pitfalls of acclaim as the perils of rejection" – Lesley Hazleton on the first muslim, the prophet.

Norway and the like are social democratic states, i.e. a capitalist 'base' with a more comprehesive set of public services and economic regulation organised by the state. There are many advantages, even from the perspective of the capitalists, as well as in terms of happiness, health, quality of life, etc; but, yes, it's true that they're often said not to be 'true' socialist societies, as their economies are still class economies based on the accumulation of capital and endless growth.

That said, as has often been remarked in recent times, even social democracy - once thought to be a middling compromise - has increasingly been placed off-limits by the managers of global capitalism, these days. Look at the brutal way in which the fairly modest, social democratic plan put forward by Greece's Syriza government for a managed way out of the country's crisis, into sustained recovery, was put down by the European Central Bank and the IMF. Likewise, the sustained campaign of disinformation and scare stories against Corbyn in the UK - the likes of which I can't remember - when Labour's manifesto was very modest, by historical standards. In those crcumstances, we have recognise that pushing for social democratic reforms is a radical course of action.

Not sure i'd put Venezuela forward as the poster child for socialism - especially now it's in crisis! Once again, it's essentially a capitalist base, a resource-rich OPEC member producing commodities for global markets, but with nationised industries and with services for the poor. Such arrangements have historically led to the enrichment of state elites and vunerability to fluctuations in commodity markets. I'm not fully up on Venezuela's current crisis, and am sceptical of the predominant explanations, but I do know that there are serious shortcomings with that model.

"Not everything that is faced can be changed; but nothing can be changed until it is faced." - James Baldwin

I've probably shared it before, but I think this paper does a great job of setting out the differences between different social systems that have been described as 'socialism', and assessing how well they address the shortcomings of capitalism, if one doesn't mind a slightly lengthy read.

"It means finding the very human narrative of a man navigating between idealism and pragmatism, faith and politics, non-violence, the pitfalls of acclaim as the perils of rejection" – Lesley Hazleton on the first muslim, the prophet.

I would say I'm attempting to evaluate social systems with both good sides and bad sides in an imperfect world. I'd call it nuance, rather than "playing both sides of the fence." Hence, I think Scandinavian-style social democracy is better than what we have, but not as good as what we could have. It adds socialist elements to capitalism, with some benefits, which I think is good, but is subject to some of the same problems of all capitalist societies, which I think is bad. Likewise, Venezuela in the heyday of Chavez, before the crisis.

I'm all for critique of the arms trade and the inequities of global trade more generally. It's just that it's not accurate to say a state is not 'socialist' or 'social democratic' because it also engages in practices we'd regard as undesirable.

"Not everything that is faced can be changed; but nothing can be changed until it is faced." - James Baldwin

I would say I'm attempting to evaluate social systems with both good sides and bad sides in an imperfect world. I'd call it nuance, rather than "playing both sides of the fence." Hence, I think Scandinavian-style social democracy is better than what we have, but not as good as what we could have. It adds socialist elements to capitalism, with some benefits, which I think is good, but is subject to some of the same problems of all capitalist societies, which I think is bad. Likewise, Venezuela in the heyday of Chavez, before the crisis.

I'm all for critique of the arms trade and the inequities of global trade more generally. It's just that it's not accurate to say a state is not 'socialist' or 'social democratic' because it also engages in practices we'd regard as undesirable.

Fine.
In the grand of scheme of things scandavavian socisliasm is no better to black and brown people as “Wall Street/corporate socialism” is to those who fall within its scope.

.[Edited 10/26/18 23:02pm]

"It means finding the very human narrative of a man navigating between idealism and pragmatism, faith and politics, non-violence, the pitfalls of acclaim as the perils of rejection" – Lesley Hazleton on the first muslim, the prophet.

"It means finding the very human narrative of a man navigating between idealism and pragmatism, faith and politics, non-violence, the pitfalls of acclaim as the perils of rejection" – Lesley Hazleton on the first muslim, the prophet.

Venezuela ... [is the] model we should base our world economy.Venezuela is far more superior to Western Europe.In every metric of social ineptitude.

I'd say that's a bold assertion at the present time.

Not really at all.

.[Edited 10/26/18 9:07am]

"It means finding the very human narrative of a man navigating between idealism and pragmatism, faith and politics, non-violence, the pitfalls of acclaim as the perils of rejection" – Lesley Hazleton on the first muslim, the prophet.

Venezuela ... [is the] model we should base our world economy.Venezuela is far more superior to Western Europe.In every metric of social ineptitude.

I'd say that's a bold assertion at the present time.

I'd say it's totally fucking ridiculous unless of course it means that Venezuela is superior in showing how not to run a country or an economy. People are fleeing Venezuela by the millions.

Venezuela can run a country ethically though!

If you don’t mention the CIA when discussing Venezuela then it’s being disingenuous

.

.
[Edited 10/26/18 9:29am][Edited 10/26/18 17:26pm]

"It means finding the very human narrative of a man navigating between idealism and pragmatism, faith and politics, non-violence, the pitfalls of acclaim as the perils of rejection" – Lesley Hazleton on the first muslim, the prophet.

"It means finding the very human narrative of a man navigating between idealism and pragmatism, faith and politics, non-violence, the pitfalls of acclaim as the perils of rejection" – Lesley Hazleton on the first muslim, the prophet.

"It means finding the very human narrative of a man navigating between idealism and pragmatism, faith and politics, non-violence, the pitfalls of acclaim as the perils of rejection" – Lesley Hazleton on the first muslim, the prophet.

If Scandinavia and the U.S were narco-states it would still be an improvement on thier current economies.

.[Edited 10/26/18 17:36pm]

"It means finding the very human narrative of a man navigating between idealism and pragmatism, faith and politics, non-violence, the pitfalls of acclaim as the perils of rejection" – Lesley Hazleton on the first muslim, the prophet.

Venezuela ... [is the] model we should base our world economy.Venezuela is far more superior to Western Europe.In every metric of social ineptitude.

I'd say that's a bold assertion at the present time.

I'd say it's totally fucking ridiculous unless of course it means that Venezuela is superior in showing how not to run a country or an economy. People are fleeing Venezuela by the millions.

These nations (Scandinavia and the U.S) are causing people to flee their countries though.

"It means finding the very human narrative of a man navigating between idealism and pragmatism, faith and politics, non-violence, the pitfalls of acclaim as the perils of rejection" – Lesley Hazleton on the first muslim, the prophet.

Haus, you at your worst. They have almost zero poverty and there is no inequality. I'll take that any ole day.

Too purist.

They sell weapons and trade other countries resources on the stock market.
The point is they are capitalist society.
Just look at what they do to achieve what you are praising.

The Scandinavians are selling weapons and stealing resources just like the rest of them, but they have better PR.
Sweden is marketed as a peaceful neutral country that doesn’t support war.
Except that they sell billions worth of arms/weapons every year.
They don’t send thier own citizens to war but they make the weapons needed for war.
Not so peaceful after all?

.[Edited 10/26/18 23:44pm]

"It means finding the very human narrative of a man navigating between idealism and pragmatism, faith and politics, non-violence, the pitfalls of acclaim as the perils of rejection" – Lesley Hazleton on the first muslim, the prophet.

"It means finding the very human narrative of a man navigating between idealism and pragmatism, faith and politics, non-violence, the pitfalls of acclaim as the perils of rejection" – Lesley Hazleton on the first muslim, the prophet.

It is interesting to see how the picture changes completely when we measure arms exports per capita for the 15 largest expporters (for the same year (2014), in million (1990) dollars):
These European nations that are being praised by some on the left are actually just huge weapons manufacturing economies.

"It means finding the very human narrative of a man navigating between idealism and pragmatism, faith and politics, non-violence, the pitfalls of acclaim as the perils of rejection" – Lesley Hazleton on the first muslim, the prophet.

As secretary of state, Hillary Clinton led a team committed to delegitimizing the politics of the late Hugo Chavez and the Bolivarian Revolution.

While Hillary Clinton publicly welcomed improved relations with Venezuela as secretary of state, she privately ridiculed the country and continued to support destabilization efforts, revealed her emails leaked by WikiLeaks.

In 2010, Clinton asked Arturo Valenzuela, then assistant secretary of state for Western Hemisphere Affairs, how “to rein in Chavez.” Valenzuela responded that, “We need to carefully consider the consequences of publicly confronting him but ought to look at opportunities for others in the region to help.”

His answer was in line with the U.S. embassy strategy in 2006, also revealed in WikiLeaks intelligence cables: “Creative U.S. outreach to Chavez' regional partners will drive a wedge between him and them,” said the confidential cable from the embassy. “By refusing to take each of Chavez's outbursts seriously, we frustrate him even more, paving the way for additional Bolivarian miscalculations. We also allow room for other international actors to respond.”

Spain was among the countries willing to help the U.S. in its subversive foreign relations strategy. Former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright passed on a message from the administration of conservative Prime Minister Mariano Rajoy in 2012 expressing intentions “to re-orient Spanish foreign policy so that it can work with the U.S. in Latin America, especially on Venezuela and Cuba ... As a transition in Cuba and something significant in Venezuela (and possibly the Andes) loom, a stronger working relationship between the U.S. and Spain could be very helpful.”

When keeping an eye on regional meetings, Clinton was especially concerned with Venezuela. Responding to a United Nations statement against the coup in Honduras in 2009—that she supported—Clinton shifted the attention to Venezuela: “Ok—but have they ever condemned Venezuela for denying press freedom?” she wrote to Deputy Chief of Staff Jake Sullivan.

He responded “I highly doubt it. And that is just the tip of the iceberg,” to which Clinton wrote, “Ah, the proverbial iceberg.”

Clinton was cautious not to respond to all of Hugo Chavez’s “antics,” but her staff insisted that Venezuelan politics were a threat to U.S. interests.

An email advising how to spend USAID funds strongly suggested refraining from backing leftist states like Venezuela, Ecuador, Nicaragua and Cuba because the money “could undermine real democratic development to hand over ‘ownership’ to populist centralizers.”

Clinton should use language like “‘local ownership’ in a nuanced way” to avoid having her words “used against her by demagogues and kleptocrats,” said the email. Any funds channeled into such unreliable states, it added, must be accompanied by “(h)uman behavioral changes.”

International aid to Venezuela was siphoned off, but broadcasts to counter local “propaganda” were amplified.

The Broadcasting Board of Governors—which runs the Marti stations, Voice of America, Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty, Radio Free Asia and the Middle East Broadcasting Networks—requested more funding in a 2010 email forwarded to Clinton to “combat the public diplomacy efforts of America's ‘enemies,’ which he (chairman Walter Isaacson) identifies as Iran, Venezuela, Russia, and China.”

The BBG, with a US$700 million annual budget—now increased to over US$750 million, though not because of Clinton—was “facing increased competition from other governments' forays into international broadcasting ... including Venezuela's teleSUR.”

Another leaked email from Stratfor described the BBG as “responsible for the radio and TV aggressions against Cuba,” which received its own category of state funding of nearly US$40 million. The board separated from State Department control in 1999, officially becoming an independent agency. “Congress agreed that credibility of U.S. international broadcasting was crucial to its effectiveness as a public diplomacy tool,” according to Congress’s 2008 budget on foreign operations.

While giving the cold shoulder to Venezuela, Clinton was cozy with Latin American players that opposed the country's leftist politics.

Her counselor and chief of staff, Cheryl Mills, forwarded her a recommendation for Mari Carmen Aponte to be appointed as U.S. ambassador to El Salvador. Aponte, noted the email, “has consistently fought Cuba and Venezuela's efforts to gain influence in Central America and as a result of her negotiating skills, the U.S. and El Salvador will open a new, jointly-funded, electronic monitoring center that will be an invaluable tool in fighting transnational crime.”

She won the appointment and later became assistant secretary of state for Western Hemisphere Affairs.

Clinton also drew fire for saying, "We're winning!" when the Venezuelan opposition won a majority of seats in parliament in 2015 and for serving as secretary of state while the National Security Administration regularly spied on Venezuela.

.[Edited 10/27/18 2:14am]

"It means finding the very human narrative of a man navigating between idealism and pragmatism, faith and politics, non-violence, the pitfalls of acclaim as the perils of rejection" – Lesley Hazleton on the first muslim, the prophet.

Chomsky is saying you should support the best option available.
Venezuela’s model is far superior to north European capitalism though.
The difference between Venezuela and Scandinavia is substantial.
Venezuela is by far the better option.
So according to Chomsky you should be supporting the better option, which is Venezuela’s model.
Your dismissal of Scandinavia’s arms trade economy is actually more in-line with Zizek’s outlook, which is to just “look on the bright side” of the less favourable option that is available to you.

In regards to Chomskys analogy. It’s true Hillary was better than Trump.
But Hillary was not the best of all the options that were actually available.
Hillary not the most progressive candidate on the ballot.

.[Edited 10/27/18 3:52am]

"It means finding the very human narrative of a man navigating between idealism and pragmatism, faith and politics, non-violence, the pitfalls of acclaim as the perils of rejection" – Lesley Hazleton on the first muslim, the prophet.

I have heard many people say that places like Norway, Scandinavia, Canada , and even U.K are in their own unique ways socialist utopias. but the reality is these are capitalist societies, with racist hierarchies that provide basic services to their citizens through the subjugation and oppression of other people’s around our world. Norway and Canada’s funds are built up from weapons sales to places like Saudi Arabia and Africa. They also happen to oppress and subjugate those within their own society to achieve their desired goals. Venezuela is perhaps the only truly revolutionary society. Although faced with hard obstacles placed on them by the CIA and what some may say were missteps of thier government by not diversifying their economy. Venezuelas socialist vision was however still built off its natural resources and had an egalitarian perspective of the world and it’s people. They have the right idea. There is no subjugation or oppression of other people within Venezuelas vision of its quest for self determination and implementing a socialist society. What does socialism mean in a truly global sense? . [Edited 10/26/18 22:09pm]

Thousands of people are fleeing Venezuela because of bad economic conditions, no health care, no jobs, no food, no place to live. The majority are seeking asylum in Peru. Venezuela is definitely not some kind of utopia.